The Word of Notch has, well, the word of Notch on why Minecraft is not sold on Valve's Steam service. While saying it's the "best digital distribution platform I’ve ever seen," he also explains:

Being on Steam limits a lot of what we’re allowed to do with the game, and how we’re allowed to talk to our users. We (probably?) wouldn’t be able to, say, sell capes or have a map market place on minecraft.net that works with steam customers in a way that keeps Valve happy. It would effectively split the Minecraft community into two parts, where only some of the players can access all of the weird content we want to add to the game.

We are talking to Valve about this, but I definitely understand their reasons for wanting to control their platform. There’s a certain inherent incompatibility between what we want to do and what they want to do.

Verno wrote on Aug 30, 2011, 08:58:Yeah, they can't even seem to do unified accounts properly. My buddy wanted a hand with registering for the TOR beta, he couldn't login to his EA account or his Origin account on their site. We take a quick look and it turns out you need to make yet another account entirely. I remember when I logged into the BF3 alpha client it showed me a profile of all of my EA accounts made over the years, there were like 30+

Personally I had no problems with this kind of thing. I had two accounts due to beta and pre-order issues back when Warhammer came out, called EA and they merged the accounts, transfered over the "perks" from my one account to another no problems. I think it all depends on who you get. While many people lambast EA support I've found it's 50/50 half the time I get some one who fixes things in 20 seconds the other half it's pulling teeth. Honestly not much better or worse than Valve. At least EA gives me a phone number to call.

Prez wrote on Aug 29, 2011, 23:01:His reasoning for not using Steam has nothing in common with EA's reason for removing games from Steam.

On a side note, I don't like his game, but I think Notch is one of the "good guys". That put's in an entirely different class from EA.

That depends on who you believe, if EA is to be believed they didn't remove their games their games were removed by Valve. And since no one (probably due to contacts) can pony up proof one way or another Valve can say what ever they want while gamers are just going to call EA evil.

Asmo wrote on Aug 29, 2011, 21:53:I'm curious though, Mass Effect 2 allowed you to purchase the add on's with points and bolt them directly to the game despite it being on Steam... Was there a big deal that Valve was kicking up over that that I missed?

That's kind of the point of EA's stance. They claim that Valve is now coming down and they did not remove their games but Valve did. So, it all comes down to who you believe and while I think EA are probably telling more truth than people will give them credit I think a lot of people will just buy any line that Valve feeds them because they are so ready to hate on EA.

And for those who claim EA "runs companies in to the ground" that's irrelivant to the discussion at hand. It's the video game equivilent of bringing Hitler and Nazis in to a discussion. When in doubt shout how a company "suxorz."

Prez wrote on Aug 29, 2011, 23:01:His reasoning for not using Steam has nothing in common with EA's reason for removing games from Steam.

On a side note, I don't like his game, but I think Notch is one of the "good guys". That put's in an entirely different class from EA.

He's been hinting about the same microtransaction bullshit that everyone else is wanting to do or already doing. In every other case it's been a nonstop litany of greed greed greed. But since it's a surprise millionaire doing it, that's okay.

Cash for capes? What's next, pig armor?

Okay, I guess it has something in common, but he has a long way to go before he attains an EA-level of evil.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi

Prez wrote on Aug 29, 2011, 23:01:His reasoning for not using Steam has nothing in common with EA's reason for removing games from Steam.

On a side note, I don't like his game, but I think Notch is one of the "good guys". That put's in an entirely different class from EA.

He's been hinting about the same microtransaction bullshit that everyone else is wanting to do or already doing. In every other case it's been a nonstop litany of greed greed greed. But since it's a surprise millionaire doing it, that's okay.

Yeah, they can't even seem to do unified accounts properly. My buddy wanted a hand with registering for the TOR beta, he couldn't login to his EA account or his Origin account on their site. We take a quick look and it turns out you need to make yet another account entirely. I remember when I logged into the BF3 alpha client it showed me a profile of all of my EA accounts made over the years, there were like 30+

Mr. Tact wrote on Aug 30, 2011, 08:07:I guess I've been hiding my head in the sand when it comes to EA Origin. I can honestly say I didn't know it existed until this topic caused me to go read about it. How big is it compared to Steam?

It's a very basic EADM reskin, it has rudimentary community friends list, a barebones HTML storefront and product key registration. That's about all there is to Origin at the moment. It's not "bad" per se, it's just very lackluster and there is no reason to use it over anything else(XFire, Steam, etc). EA could have done a whole lot more with it, they claim to be developing it over time but EA tends to go at things like a bull in a rut then forget about them a year later so I can't say my confidence level in Origin is high. That's without getting into EAs history of shenanigans when it comes to dealing with their customers.

Put all other things aside (the Valve thing) and the Origin is questionable at best. Look how many websites they have introduced just for their Veteran's program now GunClub? I think they do 4-5 redirects now.....on top of that, all of the profiles within my account, etc etc etc.

Mr. Tact wrote on Aug 30, 2011, 08:07:I guess I've been hiding my head in the sand when it comes to EA Origin. I can honestly say I didn't know it existed until this topic caused me to go read about it. How big is it compared to Steam?

It's a very basic EADM reskin, it has rudimentary community friends list, a barebones HTML storefront and product key registration. That's about all there is to Origin at the moment. It's not "bad" per se, it's just very lackluster and there is no reason to use it over anything else(XFire, Steam, etc). EA could have done a whole lot more with it, they claim to be developing it over time but EA tends to go at things like a bull in a rut then forget about them a year later so I can't say my confidence level in Origin is high. That's without getting into EAs history of shenanigans when it comes to dealing with their customers.

entr0py wrote on Aug 30, 2011, 00:42:I wonder if Steam couldn't reach some sort of compromise where they permit customers to buy compatible DLC directly through the publisher (or even a different digital retailer), but you can still buy through steam if you so choose. Just treat DLC like a traditional expansion pack; regardless of what retailer it's bought from it will still work.

That seems more reasonable than either steam having a monopoly on all subsequent DLC sales, or the publisher having the monopoly.

Pretty sure thats what valve is trying to do with steam. EA just decided to object over it. All valve wants is that DLC be made available through stream as well as however else the publisher decides to sell it.

As a customer, I want that too. I dont want to buy games on steam and then find out I have to install origin to get the DLC.

Yep. EA screwed over Steam owners of NFS: Hot Pursuit when they released a content patch that they deliberately made incompatible with everything but the version sold through retail or the EA Store. Literally a number in a text file was the only thing they changed when it was released to automatically update the Steam versions weeks later. I don't think anyone would want them to be pulling timed exclusivity bullshit for Origin with DLC and patches... I think Valve wanting to prevent this is a way more plausible reason for their disagreement than demanding DLC be sold on Steam.

entr0py wrote on Aug 30, 2011, 00:42:I wonder if Steam couldn't reach some sort of compromise where they permit customers to buy compatible DLC directly through the publisher (or even a different digital retailer), but you can still buy through steam if you so choose. Just treat DLC like a traditional expansion pack; regardless of what retailer it's bought from it will still work.

That seems more reasonable than either steam having a monopoly on all subsequent DLC sales, or the publisher having the monopoly.

Pretty sure thats what valve is trying to do with steam. EA just decided to object over it. All valve wants is that DLC be made available through stream as well as however else the publisher decides to sell it.

As a customer, I want that too. I dont want to buy games on steam and then find out I have to install origin to get the DLC.

Overon wrote on Aug 29, 2011, 23:10:Just as I'm not going to buy Modern Warfare 3 unless it's on EA's Origin, I'm not going to buy Minecraft unless it's on EA's Origin. EA, EA Origin, and everyone who works for EA or contracted by EA, is awesome.

Tomas wrote on Aug 30, 2011, 01:01:A thought on why Valve has their new policy.

Release free to play game on Steam. Make money off micro transactions and or DLC not sold via Steam. Steam foots the bill for serving up the data and everyting else that comes in the package (free advertising to its users, etc.) Now since the company using steam can handle all the money stuff on their own Valve gets nothing for providing the service. Not really hard to see why they don't want to do this.

That probably isn't the only issue here, but I'm sure it was one that came into the thought process.

Um, there's no way in hell they're going to distribute F2P games that they receive no cut of either initially or eventually. That's not a possibility now or in the future. And it's very separate issue form demanding a cut of all DLC on paid games.

Tomas wrote on Aug 30, 2011, 01:01:A thought on why Valve has their new policy.

Release free to play game on Steam. Make money off micro transactions and or DLC not sold via Steam. Steam foots the bill for serving up the data and everyting else that comes in the package (free advertising to its users, etc.) Now since the company using steam can handle all the money stuff on their own Valve gets nothing for providing the service. Not really hard to see why they don't want to do this.

That probably isn't the only issue here, but I'm sure it was one that came into the thought process.

That and Valve is now the distributor/publisher as they are hosting all the content and pipe to send it over. I think they are just trying to protect themselves ahead of the game, as the model is going to go to free to play with DLC and micro transactions. They are actually telling us the future with this move....

Release free to play game on Steam. Make money off micro transactions and or DLC not sold via Steam. Steam foots the bill for serving up the data and everyting else that comes in the package (free advertising to its users, etc.) Now since the company using steam can handle all the money stuff on their own Valve gets nothing for providing the service. Not really hard to see why they don't want to do this.

That probably isn't the only issue here, but I'm sure it was one that came into the thought process.

I wonder if Steam couldn't reach some sort of compromise where they permit customers to buy compatible DLC directly through the publisher (or even a different digital retailer), but you can still buy through steam if you so choose. Just treat DLC like a traditional expansion pack; regardless of what retailer it's bought from it will still work.

That seems more reasonable than either steam having a monopoly on all subsequent DLC sales, or the publisher having the monopoly.

Good for them. Why should they be limited in any way by the digital distributor of a game? It does no good to finally get rid of the yoke of traditional publishers and retail distribution if Valve is just as autocratic. I hope more developers take advantage of the readily available technologies to distribute their own products.

Prez wrote on Aug 29, 2011, 23:01:His reasoning for not using Steam has nothing in common with EA's reason for removing games from Steam.

Not really. He wants to leave open the possibility of his own in-game DLC store that isn't available through Steam, which according to EA is now verboten by Valve. Or at least one where he intends it to be used in ways not compatible with the way Steam does things.